linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ALSA: hda/tegra: Skip reset on BPMP devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d1e222e4-a260-06da-6c01-6b96ec707c8b@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:39:42 +0530
From:   Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>
To:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     tiwai@...e.com, broonie@...nel.org, lgirdwood@...il.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, perex@...ex.cz, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        digetx@...il.com, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ALSA: hda/tegra: Skip reset on BPMP devices



On 12/7/2021 2:06 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2021 09:16:43 +0100,
> Thierry Reding wrote:
>> I suppose this could also be a bool. Not sure if we need to care about
>> packing optimizations at this point.
>>
>> It may also be useful to rename this to something less generic to avoid
>> potential clashes with other data structures in the future. We've often
>> used the _soc suffix in other drivers to mark this kind of SoC-specific
>> data. In this case it would be struct hda_tegra_soc.
>>
>> If Takashi is fine with this as-is, I don't have any strong objections,
>> though.
> Indeed, a bit more prefix would be better for avoiding the possible
> conflict in future, but the struct name is local, so I don't mind to
> use the simple name for now.  We can change it later once when needed,
> too.

[...]

>>
>> One other thing we've done in the past is to explicitly pass these
>> structures for each compatible string. That simplifies things a bit
>> because we don't have to keep checking for non-NULL pointers and instead
>> rely on the fact that there's always a valid pointer.
>>
>> To do so, you'd basically add:
>>
>>        static const struct hda_data tegra186_data = {
>>                .do_reset = 0,
>>        };
>>
>> And reference that for both the Tegra186 and Tegra194 entries. Again,
>> not strictly necessary and since we have only one occurrence where we
>> need to check this, it seems fine as-is, so:
>>
>> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
> That's true, too.  OTOH, completely without a NULL check would be also
> unsafe, so some sanity check would be still required.
>
> That said, the current patch is good enough for taking as a regression
> fix, but I'm fine to wait for a while for v2 to address those, too :)
>

Let me send a v2 for above.